BM 2004-07-01 BOAMINUTES OF JULY 1, 2004
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance:
Mark LeGros, Chairman
David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman
Rob Chomiak, Commissioner
David Terry, Commissioner
Steve Wright, Commissioner
John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner
Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner
Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner
Absent:
Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner
Also present:
Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary
Applicants present:
Mr. Bruce Martin, Wynnpage Plaza, 255 S. Denton Tap Road, Coppell
Ms. Joanne Smith, 420 S. Coppell Road, Coppell
Item 1: Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros.
Chairman LeGros explained the procedures of the meeting and administered the oath for those wishing to
speak for or against the request being heard this evening.
Item 2:
Approval of minutes of June 3, 2004 meeting.
Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2004, meeting. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved.
Item 3:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-29-4(3) of the
City of Coppell's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 255 S. Denton Tap Road.
Mr. Bruce Martin, on behalf of Kumon Learning Center, located in Suite 200 of Wynnpage
Plaza, is requesting a variance to allow for the erection of an attached sign, facing Denton
Tap Road, on a wall that is not a part of Kumons' frontage.
Greg Jones referred to the drawings, included in the packet, indicating that this building consists of three
separate lease spaces, but, only two (ATS Services and PharmaSkinCare) actually have street frontage
along Denton Tap. The remaining tenant, Kumon Learning Center, is located in Suite 200, within the
building, but has no Denton Tap street frontage. He also reported that PharmaSkinCare has not yet
applied for their "attached" sign permit, but ATS Services is already occupying the building and has
erected a small attached sign, which actually falls below their size allotment. He further explained that
this building has only rear-facing entrances, and was originally approved for "office" use zoning, adding
that it's actually being leased for "retail" use, in which signage becomes an important issue for the
tenants.
Greg Jones further explained that, based on the 1:1 ratio, outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Kumon would
be entitled to a sign approximately 60 sq. ft. in size, but, because they're requesting that the sign be
located on the front of the building, and they have no building frontage, a variance is needed for sign
location purposes. He further noted that Kumon Learning Center has complied with all other zoning
requirements, and, if they were to have a sign on the front of the building, it would be located at the south
end of the building front. He emphasized, however, that in doing so, it would deny PharmaSkinCare of
their full signage allotment based on building frontage calculations.
Greg Jones commented, also, that from past experience, similar situations, in which signs are located a
distance away from the actual suite locations, have resulted in confusion for the public, and are usually
not a good solution. He indicated that, in most cases, this type of problem would be resolved through the
landlord/tenant lease agreement, rather than through the City in the form of a variance request.
Greg Jones further commented that it could not be determined, from the notification mailing list, whether
PharmaSkinCare had received notification of this meeting. He added, however, that the landlord, most
likely, would have communicated this information to all concerned tenants.
Chairman LeGros asked if a monument sign, listing the tenant names, would be an option in this case.
Greg Jones explained that a monument sign, listing anything other than Wynnpage Plaza, was not part of
the City's original approval process. Therefore, such a change would require reconsideration by Planning
and Zoning, and possibly by City Council.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked if all entrances are located at the rear of the building, and Greg Jones
responded that they are, including one main entrance and various other service entrances. Commissioner
Stonecipher further asked if all three tenants had submitted sign permit applications. Greg Jones replied
that ATS Services was previously approved for their existing attached sign, and, PharmaSkinCare was
approved for their existing temporary banner permit, but had not yet applied for an attached sign permit.
Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the size allowed for each of the tenants' signs. Greg
Jones explained that PharmaSkinCare would be allowed approximately 80 sq. ft., Kumon would be
allowed a 60 sq. ft. sign, and ATS Services would utilize the remaining space, even though their current
sign is already erected and is actually smaller in size than their allotted space.
Commissioner Chomiak commented that he wondered at what point this issue becomes a landlord/tenant
issue, and not a City issue. He further asked if the City would actually approve three attached signs,
should a variance be granted. Greg Jones reiterated that due to the fact that Kumon does not have
frontage along Denton Tap, a sign cannot be placed on the front of the building, according to the Sign
Ordinance, because it would, in effect, deny PharmaSkinCare their full sign allotment.
Commissioner Wright asked for clarification on the location of the specific language, in the Ordinance,
that states that a sign can only be located on the building face. Greg Jones indicated that the Ordinance
defines it as frontage shared with other leaseholders, adding that he had not spoken with the other tenants,
but perhaps the applicant had done so.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked if the City could suggest any other signage options for Kumon Learning
Center. Greg Jones responded that the City really has no control over this situation since the development
was originally approved for "office" use, rather than retail.
Discussion continued on the method of calculation for maximum aggregate effective area.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case.
Mr. Bruce Martin, property owner of 255 S. Denton Tap Road, explained that his goal is to give each
tenant at least some sign visibility. He noted that this building was oriented and designed to give a clean
look, from the Denton Tap side, adding that complying with all of the requirements for location of
utilities, entrances, parking requirements, fire lanes, and line of sight, presented a challenge.
Chairman LeGros asked the applicant for clarification of his actual property hardship. Mr. Martin
responded that, throughout the development process, he understood that signage calculations would be
based on the width of the entrance to their site, rather than on building frontage. He added that he was
surprised to learn, later in the process, of the City's interpretation of Sections 12-29-4(B)(i) and 12-29-
4(B)(ii), in which building frontage is used as the basis of determining signage. Mr. Martin reported,
however, that he spoke with PharmaSkinCare about this variance request, and they indicated their
willingness to work something out with Kumon Learning Center, regarding signs.
Greg Jones responded that this interpretation, based on building frontage, is consistent with past
decisions, including: Everybody Fits, located off Denton Tap; and, Coppell Crossing, located off
MacArthur. He reiterated that this issue could have been addressed through a landlord-tenant lease
agreement.
Commissioner Stonecipher commented that regulations for a rear-entrance building are not clearly
defined in the Ordinance. Mr. Martin commented that at the rear of the building, the main entrance is
clearly obvious, and, to further minimize confusion, they plan to install knee-high, on-premise signs.
Commissioner Stonecipher questioned whether three logical locations even exist on the front of this
building for attached signs. Commissioner LeGros asked if the PharmaSkinCare attached sign would go
in the same location as their current banner, and it was noted that a permit had not yet been submitted for
the PharmaCareSkin sign. The question was raised, also, if the variance would be tied to the property or
to the tenant. Chairman LeGros commented that he felt the variance should be tied to the property, in
order to resolve this issue for future tenants, as well as current ones.
Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the actual issue that is being violated in this situation,
commenting that if signage doesn't exceed the square footage limit, does a sign problem really exist.
Mr. Martin suggested that it might simplify the City's role in the sign approval process if Kumon and
PharmaSkinCare applied for their sign permits at the same time. Greg Jones indicated, however, that the
real issue is that unless a variance is granted by this board, Kumon Learning Center is, by Ordinance, not
entitled to an attached sign facing Denton Tap, since building frontage is a factor.
The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request.
Meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the board for discussion.
Commissioner Wright commented that he felt the City's interpretation of using the building face to
determine signage is reasonable. He added that he felt this interpretation could be used as an avenue for
hardship, but, commented that he felt the variance should not be tied to the tenants only. Chairman
LeGros commented that he felt this situation should have been handled through the lease agreement,
adding that because the use changed, the only real solution to this problem is a monument sign.
Commissioner Terry suggested that the three tenants be allowed to divide the 130 sq. ft., as long as it
doesn't exceed the maximum for the building, adding that he agrees with Mr. Martin's suggestion of
asking the two remaining tenants to submit sign permits at the same time.
Commissioner Chomiak commented that he did not understand why the City was even involved in this
issue, especially since PharmaSkinCare was not present for this meeting to express their concerns.
Commissioner Stonecipher indicated that he would be more comfortable if he could see more examples of
similar cases in the City, adding that he is still struggling with the issue that none of these three tenant
spaces actually "front" on Denton Tap Road.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that a variance be granted allowing Kumon Learning Center
to erect an attached sign not to exceed 20 sq. ft. in size. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Terry,
and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Chairman LeGros voting in opposition. Variance
granted.
Item 4:
Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request for the property located at 420 S.
Coppell Road. Ms. Joanne Smith is requesting the following two-part variance concerning
fence location and color:
1) from Sections 12-11-3. l(a) and 12-32-2.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, to
allow for a 20-ft. variance to the front setback line along Kaye Street; and
2) from Article 9-2-7(B) of the City of Coppell's Code of Ordinances, to allow the
fence to be painted white, whereas the Code of Ordinances limits wood fence
colors to earth-tone colors only.
Greg Jones noted that this variance request originally consisted of two separate requests, but the applicant
has since withdrawn the request regarding fence color. He reported, however, that Ms. Smith is
requesting a 20-ft. variance to the front setback line along Kaye Street.
Referring to the packet, Greg Jones explained the proposed location of the fence, indicating that it would
be a combination of picket and privacy fence. He noted that this lot is located in the old Coppell district
and the house was constructed in the 1950s, when no zoning requirements existed. As a result, the
property has never been platted, and the meets and bounds survey provided by the Tax Dept. was
illegible. He explained that with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in the 1980s, the property was
zoned SF-12, meaning that any changes in fencing, thereafter, would need to comply with the 30-ft. front
yard setback, as it applies to corner lots, along Kaye Street and Coppell Road. Greg Jones further
explained that this appeared to be a single lot, and was not grandfathered.
Commissioner Wright asked for clarification on the distance between the curb and the house, and Greg
Jones reported that he did not have those measurements.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked if there were different requirements for a repair or replacement of a
fence, and Greg Jones responded that this fence would be considered "non-conforming", if re-constructed
in the same place.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case.
Ms. Joanne Smith explained that she is willing to accept a 10-ft. setback to insure corner visibility, but,
applying the required 30-ft. setback would drastically reduce her useable sideyard along Kaye Street. She
reported that she's been allowed to utilize this additional yard space all these years, having received the
property through inheritance. She explained that she would like to be able to continue fully utilizing it the
property, and, in particular, to construct a fenced-in dog run. Ms. Smith reported that she spoke with her
adjacent neighbors and none were opposed to her fencing plan.
Commissioner Chomiak asked if the picket-fence section would be see-through pickets, and Ms. Smith
indicated that she had not yet made a decision about the pickets, but reported that the fence height for the
"picket" section would be reduced to between 4 and 4-1/2 feet.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked the applicant if there were any property hardships that prevented her
from complying with the 30-ft. setback. Ms. Smith replied that 8 feet of her Kaye Street sideyard will be
taken as easement when the street is widened in the future, adding that her trees may also be affected.
The hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request.
Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion.
Chairman LeGros commented that he felt the hardship was self-imposed, adding that denial of the request
would not restrict reasonable use of the property. He added that all property owners with corner lots are
held to the same restrictions.
Commissioner Wright indicated that he felt the required setback is important in maintaining the visual
corridor at Kaye Street and Coppell Road.
Motion was made by Commissioner Terry that the variance request be granted. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Stonecipher and a vote was taken. Motion was not approved, 5 to 0. Variance denied.
Other Business.
None.
Adiournment.
Meeting adjourned.
Mark LeGros, Chairman
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary